Saturday, January 5, 2008

Freedom of speech is under assault today in Britain. A British blogger whom I have had occasion to read, Lionheart, has posted on his website that he expects to be arrested upon his return to the United Kingdom for things that he has posted on his blog. Likely as a result of his commentary on Islam, he will be charged with "stirring up racial hatred."

Lionheart is a modern pamphleteer. He uses his blog to shine a light on the evils of radical Islam, primarily within the borders of the UK. He sees the growth of radical Islam in his country as insidious and a threat to the very existence of British culture, if not Britain itself.

(Update) As to the foundation for Lionheart's belief, please see these recent revelations in the British press. The first, from the Telegaph, discusses the existance of Muslim 'no-go' areas in the UK where the indigenous population dare not tread. The day after that article was released, the allegations were confirmed by Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Muslim Forum in Britain, who, writing in the Daily Mail, expressed his horror at the rise of radical Islam in Britain's Muslim population, and, in a stinging indictment, expressed his judgment that the U.K. socialist's policy of "multiculturalism has backfired spectacularly." Not surprisingly, PM Gordon Brown denied that any major problem exists. And it is telling that all of the major British political parties, including the supposedly conservative Tory party, "have responded with knee-jerk predictability, desperate as ever not to offend Muslim sensibilities." Lastly, there is this from the Times, discussing how multiculturalist policies have fanned the flames of radicalism in Britain to the point where the majority strain of Deobandi Islam now present in Britain is more radical and militant than that to be found in Pakistan. To put that in some perspective, do recall that it is Pakistan's radical Deobandis that form the core of the Taliban.

With all of that in mind, do visit Lionhearts blog. Lionheart’s descriptions of what he sees in his own local community are dire. But while his language may be emotional, Lionheart ultimately is no different than thousands of bloggers in the U.S. who similarly note, deconstruct, and critically discuss radical Islam. He just happens to be living in Luton, ground zero for radical Islam in the UK. It is also important to note that Lionheart does not promote violence against Muslims. (Update: Phyllis Chessler provides more background and an interview here)

I contacted Lionheart to get additional information about his claim that he faced imminent arrest, and he put me in contact with the attorney whom he has retained, Anthony Bennett. I spoke with Mr. Bennett, who confirmed the following facts:

1. The Bedfordshire police have contacted Lionheart to arrange for him to submit to arrest.

2. Lionheart asked the police why he would to be arrested. A Bedfordshire police officer sent Lionheart an e-mail, forwarded to me by Mr. Bennett, which read in pertinent part:

The offence that I need to arrest you for is "Stir up Racial Hatred by displaying written material" contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986.

You will be arrested on SUSPICION of the offence. You would only be charged following a full investigation based on all the relevant facts and CPS consent.

3. Mr. Bennett adds "There are already a number of aspects about this case involving not only ‘Lionheart’ but concerning other friends of his which are almost certain to result in a complaint being made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission."

4. There has been nothing filed yet by the police that will tell us precisely what blog posts they will be using to prosecute Lionheart. That will only become known after his arrest. Further, we do not yet know who was responsible for making a complaint to the police.

The Public Order Act of 1986 makes it an offense to "stir up racial hatred." The act defines "racial hatred" as "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins." The law does not define the word "hatred." The specific provisions of the Public Order Act of 1986 mentioned by the police in their e-mail to Lionheart are:

18 (1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

27 (3) A person guilty of an offence under this Part is liable— (a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or a fine or both;

To call this law a gross assault on freedom of speech would be the height of understatement. It criminalizes the content of speech and it applies a wholly subjective threshold – "hatred" – for finding guilt. There is no question that this law would be unconstitutional in the U.S. This is ironic because our 1st Amendment freedoms of speech and the press derive from British common law as it existed in 1776. Yet Britain never adopted a written Constitution, thus setting the stage for the modern day socialists to silence and stifle free speech by merely passing laws through Parliament.

To put this in the broader context, socialists in Britain and throughout Europe, are using their laws to protect Islam from substantive criticism as part of a suicidal marriage of convenience. That marriage combines the socialist's core ethos of multiculturalism with the creation of a reliable, and increasingly critical, Muslim electoral bloc. As Bret Stephen wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

For Muslim voters in Europe, the attractions of the Socialists are several. Socialists have traditionally taken a more accommodating approach to immigrants and asylum-seekers than their conservative rivals. They have championed the welfare state and the benefits it offers poor newcomers. They have promoted a multiculturalist ethos, which in practice has meant respecting Muslim traditions even when they conflict with Western values. In foreign policy, Socialists have often been anti-American and, by extension, hostile to Israel. That hostility has only increased as Muslim candidates have joined the Socialists' electoral slates and as the Muslim vote has become ever more crucial to the Socialists' electoral margin.

The mere existence of the hate speech laws on the books is chilling to freedom of speech as the potential penalties are severe. And there is a mountain of evidence beyond the prospective arrest of Lionheart that the socialist Labour Party in Britain are using their hate speech laws to stifle speech and proscribe certain thoughts.

Perhaps the most infamous example of the misuse of hate speech laws by the socialist Labour Government comes out of the BNP prosecutions and, in particular, statements made by then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

In 2004, the BBC surreptitiously filmed a speech by members of the British Nationalist Party (BNP). Caught on film were BNP members who described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith" and who said that Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole". The Crown used the Public Order Act of 1986 to prosecute the BNP members for stirring up racial hatred. After two lengthy trials, the first of which ended in a partial hung jury, the BNP members were acquitted. Their attorney argued at both trials that the speech was a part of legitimate political discourse. Gordon Brown commented after the trial:

Laws protecting Britain's ethnic and religious minorities may be tightened after the leader of the British National Party was cleared of trying to stir up racial hatred, Chancellor Gordon Brown said last night.

The Chancellor promised a fresh look at the law in the light of the decision of a jury at Leeds Crown Court yesterday to clear BNP leader Nick Griffin and his fellow activist

. . . Mr Brown said: "Mainstream opinion in this country will be offended by some of the statements that they have heard made. Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country. And I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out, from whatever quarter it comes."

Does that take your breath away - trying to convict someone and sentincing them for up to seven years in prison for "offending" "mainstream opinion?" PM Gordon Brown will never be confused in the history books with Voltaire. It is both amazing and telling that Brown's statement raised not a hue and cry in Britain.

Regardless of how one feels about the BNP, there is a reason to protect their free speech rights that goes to the very heart of a liberal democracy. As George Washington once said "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." And there is no doubt that the people of Britain today are being led by their socialist government like sheep to the slaughter. Freedom of speech is stifled, criminalized or manipulated by the socialists on all of the major challenges Britain faces today, be it open borders immigration that threatens to swamp the country’s infrastructure, the surrender of sovereignty to the EU, or the challenge of Europe’s most radicalized Islamic population. More particularly, the socialists are using the hate speech laws to enforce their brand of politically correct multiculturalism on Britain.

Another example is also illuminating. On January 15, 2007, Britain’s Channel 4 broadcast Undercover Mosque, an expose of the hatred and violence being preached in Britain’s mosques. Here is part 1 of that program. It clearly exposes the type of radicalization going on in Britain’s mosques – and indeed, it is precisely the type of things shown in this video that Lionheart rails against in his blog. Parts 2 through 6 are embedded at the end of this post.

If you are wondering who was investigated for violation of the Hate Speech laws as a result of this program, it was none of the Wahhabi and Deobandi clerics who appeared therein preaching violence, hatred and seperatism. It was Channel 4 for broadcasting the show.

In another recent incident, a Reverend was investigated by police for a hate crime for merely making an innocuous posting about Islam on his website. In commenting upon that situation, Simon Davis, a British subject, said:

Clearly, this is no longer a free country. Expressions of opinion, taste and preference are now heavily policed - but not in every case. Oh, no. Take for starters the case of the Channel Four documentary which exposed the genuine religious hatred given voice by certain Islamic preachers. Instead of acting against the guilty, the police investigated the programme makers! What, I wonder, would their order of priorities have been had the preachers been Christian? Or white?

Again, when Islamic extremists were giving utterance to death threats outside the Danish Embassy some months ago, the only people arrested or stopped were those white persons foolhardy enough to object. A Christian who distributed leaflets bearing Biblical texts hostile to homosexuality was subjected to all sorts official enquiry. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, meanwhile, airs his anti-gay opinions on national radio and nothing is done.

Once we did not police thoughts and subjected utterance to minimal restraint. Our target was action - violent action and it was punished with swift severity. The result was a lively, stimulating and peaceful environment. Now the courts act on the assumption that most violent action can be excused, whilst crusading against any defendant whose motives might appear on the list of proscribed opinions.

The second truth to emerge is that if any group in British society is now subject to prejudice and de facto legal disability it is the idigenous, white population. This is the logical outcome of so-called "positive" discrimination. It is the end result of a world-view which portrays the ills of the world as issuing from the culture of Europe. Not only does the present generation of Europeans have to expiate the sins of its forefathers but they are denied any sense of having forefathers at all.

No wonder we are all so demoralised as to have given up the business of "generation" altogether. The monstrous but influential web of hard left opinion - which has come to oppose reason and objectivity themselves as merely "western" and therefore false concepts - is now threatening to asphyxiate our culture. The case of the bullied clergyman is now sadly typical of life in this country.

That explains the why of what is happening to Lionheart. Britain of course has the right to commit national suicide. What they should not have the right to do is convict a blogger for merely contesting the suicide. Lionheart deserves our support. And that support is not given wholly out of charity. Britain is the lynchpin of democracy and western values in Europe. If Britain should ever lose its character, which appears well on its way to happening, our own country would increasingly be isolated.

FREE SPEECH? WHAT'S THAT? British blogger to be arrested for inciting racial hatred. What, are they channeling the Saudis in Britain? If you're interested in supporting free speech rights, the British Embassy's contact page is here. As with the Saudi case I don't know much about the blogger, but I don't need to -- people shouldn't be arrested merely for blogging things that the powers-that-be don't like. . .

I concur. My suggestion is that we need to do all we can to publicize this case through our blogs, to write letters to our Congress, and attempt to get the MSM involved. The case of Lionheart needs as much light shined on it as possible – for his sake and ours.

Addendum: There is some significance to the fact that Lionheart is being prosecuted for stirring up racial hatred under the Public Order Act of 1986 and not being prosecuted, at least as of yet, under the new Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006. To the extent that Lionheart’s arrows are pointed anywhere, they are being pointed at radical Islam irrespective of nationality.

The new law, which just came into effect on Oct. 1, provides:

29A Meaning of "religious hatred:" In this Part "religious hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.

29B (1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

29J Protection of freedom of expression. Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

Amazingly, this bill to criminalize "religious hate" was first introduced without Article 29J after the attacks of 9-11, with politically correct cries of Islamaphobia filling the air waves in Britain. It did not get through the House of Lords. However, the socialist Labour government continuously pushed this legislation at the urging of such groups as the Muslim Council of Britain. The House of Lords eventually agreed to a watered down version with protections for freedom of expression in Article 29J. There are no such provisions protecting freedom of expression in the Public Order Act of 1986.

Article 29J likely applies to virtually everything about which Lionheart blogs. Thus, it would seem that the government is attempting to silence Lionheart’s speech by portraying his criticism of Islam as racial rather than religious in nature. The problem with that of course is that Islam is not a race.

32 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Claim political asylum. Do not return. You have much support here. Use the press and media, especially Glenn Beck and Michael Savage. You could turn the tables if you go public with this.I can help, I'm in US and have contacts in CNN.

Unfortunately, in Britain "truth" is not a valid defense against libel, and apparently it's also no defense against accusations of "hate speech". WHY NOT? Shouldn't "It's the truth, dammit" be worth SOMETHING in the West?

There has been nothing filed yet by the police that will tell us precisely what blog posts they will be using to prosecute Lionheart.

Oh, isn't that just wonderful? NOT!

Please note: Lionheart is scheduled to be the guest for the full hour on the radio show which I cohost: The Gathering Storm Radio Show. Information about the date and time is available at my web site. You can voice your support of LH by phoning in and/or posting comments in the chat room.

As one who has been personally burned by a far left ratbag who put my name, where I live, the business I own and much more in his filthy paper, saying 'Muslim, here is the Jew, come and kill him' I can only pledge my support to this brave fellow while I spit on this treasonous, dhimmified organization called the British government, that seeks to replace the natives with a Muhammedan proletariat.

Stand up & fight, don't let them turn your homeland completely over to the swine!

The 'Bushies' would never advocate these legal shenanigans but some of the PIAPS people and Dhimmicrats do and would.

This 'Racial & Religious Hatred Act' is a load of crap. Hopefully it will be scrapped someday when the lawyers start being pressured to use it against Islam's obvious and much more virulent hate speech.

This planned arrest is terrible news for Lionheart, Britain and the world. Probably the Luton Pakistani Muslim Heroin and crack gang (which is also involved with forcing non-Muslim teen girls into sex-slavery) who he has helped expose pressured the dhimmi pigs to arrest him.

Too many in the dhimmidiot government in Britain are pathetic and corrupt. The EU is showing itself to be very evil in practice as well as most misguided and extremely stupid and ignorant of reality.

This suppression of free speech will actually cause more violence and hatred of course.This case will also serve to educate the masses even more about the evils of Sharia and the importance of standing up to Islam.

This must be made very public, we should all tell all our friends about this. Spread the word! God bless Lionheart, I believe he will prevail.The lawyers on the Right MUST be supported to start fighting this BS more.

But both 'The Left' and 'The Right' should be ticked off about this.

We should tell all the Radio Gods about this. Maybe they'll rant about it on their shows.

I've been in contact with Lionheart over the years, as I have been with some others commenting here, Leon, Dinah, Sheik, and AOW, for example. It shows that we do not go away. We are here in spite of the assaults we suffer. For many of us this is more than a mere hobby: it's a core of our being. The socialists and other fascists can't stop that part, even by court threats, not even by arrests. Some have come and gone, but many of us will never stop, gaol or not.

Here in Vancouver, Canada we struggle on behalf of William "Bill" Simpson and his better known blogger, Mark Steyn. It becomes a pattern when it is so clearly seen that bloggers and writers are harassed and intimidated and worse; but we don't stop.

I must run now to met with the group who organize on behalf of Simpson here.

I'll return later for more. I will return, even if only through a lawyer, if need be.

Ironic, the link to the British embassy has a white woman wearing the Union Jack as a 'hijab'. *hurl*And it says, "The Art of Integration Exhibition: Islam in Britain’s Green and Pleasant Lands"I guess integration means you Brits become Muslims.Sick, sick, sick.

Of course you know which way the UK Provincial Government is facing when Prime Minister (as he then was) Tony Bliars wife (Cherie Booth QC) was the principal advocate for the Luton girl who was claiming human rights infringement by not being allowed to wear a jilbab instead of her school uniform. Eventually the school won on appeal to the House of Lords, but they were hung out to dry by the government!

[The Provincial Government jibe is a reference to sovereignty and the state/empire called Europe.]

Keep in mind that the evil forces are after Lionheart because he helped the cops put a connected drug dealer in prison, then his gang started sending him death threats and then the cops wouldn't help him.

Local bloggers blogging locally all over the world generally are going to face much more danger because they will always be in their foe's backyard reporting on everything they do and driving them mad towards revenge.

He's not just writing about Islam encroaching on Europe and the UK. He's writing about what a very wealthy and well connected Pakistani Muslim organized crime family is up to in Luton.

Pakistani Muslim Mafia, the Mob.

We can't stop, WE MUST NOT STOP fighting for Free Speech and Justice! We will fight for Lionheart!

I am currently researching the Lionheart case to verify the claims made in this case. I would love to believe his case but there seems to be a few red flags.

1) Ian Holden's email. Cops do not send out warrants for arrest in emails. Suspects are generally detained when entering ports of entry into the UK.

2) Anthony Bennett. Have you contacted his "solicitor? Have you seen any reference anywhere linking Bennett with "Lionheart"? The only reference is on Paul's site. Odd don't you think for a solicitor who has been handed one of the most groundbreaking cases this century and there is zero mention, anywhere. The only site linked to Mr Bennett is a seriously badly created web page which is devoted to the D-List actor "Micheal Barrymore", a case which Bennett is or has worked on.

3) Did you verify the case before putting Paul on the air?

4) Why has this historic case not been aired anywhere in the UK, the USA apart from blogs? Even Bedfordshire local council have no mention on this. I refuse to believe that there has been a government blackout on this story. In today's media the press would be all over this. Even Anthony Bennett has been quiet?

5) Anthony Bennett was/is a local politician, yet there has been no mention on this in any House of Commons publication or mentioned by any backbenchers?

6)Ian Holden's email address has been removed from Lionheart's page? Why? The more emails Ian gets in support of Paul the better right?

Thanks GW. My point is, for anyone wondering why I am doing this, is to make sure that if this is 100% true then I will do everything I can do to get this on MSM. GW, did you find out why Mr Bennett has not gone public with this story? Surely Mr Bennett needs to run with this rather than the Michael Barrymore case? This is the case of a lifetime.

I just received an email from Anthony Bennett stating that he will represent Paul if Paul ever goes back and is arrested. The only part missing from the jigsaw puzzle is did Ian Holden from the Bedfordshire police really send that email. I'm awaiting an email from the British cops regarding this.

there is a case somewhat similar here in Vancouver, Canada: William (Bill) Simpson was supposedly a blogger writing downtowneastsideenquirer.blogspot.com, a blog the upset the povertarian clique in town whom the blog exposed as corrupt and lazy, and so on, the typical povertarian socialist work ethic being on display and then shown to the blog's readers. The city's unionized employees show as they are had a homeless man expelled from a city community centre for blogging, though it turns out the man barred is not the one they wanted to ban after-all.

In pursuit of those responsibile for providing details to the DTES Enquirer, city employees asked favors of policemen, meaning that off-duty and out of town policemen made visits to those they thought might be involved in the blog in question. The police even left comments at the DTES blog asking the blogger for more information and a meeting!

It's a long story and involved, but the story is the same as in Lutton: the powers-that-be do not like dissent. Here we fight back.

For details of the William Simpson case please Google. Expressions of support are always welcome.

And her in wonderful Britain, just to add to this complete nonsense and fiasco of "Justice" the current amendments to the British Criminal Justice and Immigration Act will accord the same treatment for any protestant or catholic priest/pastor standing up to support "Normal" family life, heterosexual and monogamous marriage and etc, as a "Hate" crimes against Homosexuals, Transvestites, Cross Dressers et al (which, of course, his/her strict interpretation of Christianity must inevitably do)!

Only now a short step to a weird inverted form of National Socialism (Nazism) when the book burning commences.............

Thus opinion in the UK is now labelled a felony!

Strange, but in a total diametric reversal of what one might consider the norm, telling the truth is now become a crime!

The pathetic British apology for a government has become the secret weapon of an Islam, intent on World domination by any means.

Regardless of where they are, the result of Left power is always the same, here in Vancouver, Canada, in Britain, or at the UN and EU.

On the Vancouver scene:

Thursday, January 10, 2008Author of "Poor Bashing" Endorsed Anti-Poverty Activists Who Won Seats on the Carnegie Center Board of Directors

The Left got organized to get trusted comrades elected to two vacant positions on the Board of Directors of the Carnegie Center this evening, Thursday, January 10, 2008. That’s the same Board that homeless Bill Simpson was elected to in June 2007, only to be banished two weeks later to the sidewalk by the City of Vancouver, denied access to Board meetings as punishment for exercising his right to freedom of expression.

Jean Swanson, author of "Poor-Bashing: The Politics of Exclusion" and an organizer with the Carnegie Center Action Project [CCAP] to end homelessness, sent an email about the election to volunteers on the CCAP mailing list. Swanson, an American ex-pat who spoke to a UN representative about the issue of homelessness in Vancouver but apparently found no time to speak up about the "exclusion" of homeless Bill Simpson from the Center from which she organizes, gave recipients of her email not so subtle hints about who to vote for:

go to http://downtowneastsideenquire.blogspot.com for the rest of that installment of this grubby story.

In reaction to the abuse of power the patrons of the Carnegie Centre are doing....

Well, maybe they'll organize. It's a small issue here in Vancouver, a larger one with Mark Steyn, a larger one still with Lionheart, and a huge problem with the UN outlawing "islamophobia." And it's you problem.

This could be a bit too lengthy but I'll leave it in the hope those who don't want to read the whole thing will simply scroll down. It concerns censorship in Florida and the usual dhimmitude of middle America in denial:

From: United American Committee info@unitedamericancommittee.org

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008

Subject: No free speech according to Seminole Chronicle

Yesterday we told you about a disgusting article written by an anonymous editor of the Seminole Chronicle newspaper in Florida in which they called the UAC "racist" and "a joke" for confronting Islamist groups with proven ties to terrorism. The article also defended Hamas suggesting that it was simply a political party on par with the Democrats or Republicans.

The online version of the article had a section which allowed for comments, and we just found out that although last night there were nearly fifty comments countering all of the article's absurdities and outrageous statements, this morning the newspaper has deleted all of the comments and disabled the commenting feature in a defiant act to stifle free speech and silence statements of logic and reality.

Now we need to let em' have it. We urge EVERYONE to contact the newspaper and let your opinions be known. Their editor is Michelle Yossee-Beard, who although denies she wrote the article, refuses to state who did. The newspaper's contact information is below; We urge you to call, email, and write snail mail letters as well.

The article, titled "Chronicle protests racism from callers", is located at:http://www.seminolechronicle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2008/01/09/4785693155de5

[See Below:]

Seminole Chronicle

Chronicle protests racism from callersJanuary 09, 2008

When the Chronicle ran the article last week titled "Muslim camp draws protest," we expected people might be upset. We figured they would be upset that people in Seminole County would be ignorant enough to protest a youth camp based on strictly religious reasons.

Boy were we shocked when the angry phone calls came in. People were upset - with us, not the protesters.

They accused us of being Al Qaeda sympathizers. They invoked the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Fox News and Newt Gingrich in some of their rants.

The fact is that we reported on a story that happened in Seminole County. It was fair and balanced. We did not insert opinions in it.

Now, though, we're ready to opine.

While the people who called and complained were obviously well-intentioned, the fact remains that the Muslim religion is still the victim of stereotypical assumptions. While we're hopeful that the vast majority of our readers are well-informed when it comes to Islam, it's time we turned our attention to the ever-present squeaky wheels.

So here it is, folks: a double-shot of grease to shut the squeaky wheels up.

First, Islam is not a violent religion. While the Muslim religion allows its followers to defend themselves - something the Bible also allows - a couple of passages are typically misconstrued.

Admittedly, those passages when misconstrued tend to fuel the extremist followers of the religion, but the vast majority of Muslims don't do that.

Here are a couple of Quran passages you may not have heard.

"Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors." (Quran 2:190)

"If they seek peace, then seek you peace. And trust in God for He is the One that heareth and knoweth all things." (Quran 8:61)

The Quran is just so unreasonable. Not like the Bible, what with quotes like these:

"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. ... If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." (Deuteronomy 20:10-17)

While this passage is obviously antiquated, so are the passages used in the Quran that are pulled out of context. The point we're making is that everything, even religious passages, can be pulled out of context and must be taken with a grain of salt.

And that's not even the passages from Leviticus on homosexuality and adultery, the ones most people point to.

To the right of this editorial, you'll see a letter from a member of the United American Committee. In it, he explains that the point of their protest was that public property was being utilized for a camp that has ties to terrorist organizations.

The first part of this has some grain of truth to it. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has come under public scrutiny for supporting Hamas in the past. However, CAIR has also been touted as one of the largest defenders of Islamic civil rights.

The point of the protest, according to those who organized it, is to make people aware that this group was using public property. For a youth camp. To teach children to better respect the environment.

Heavens no.

Sometimes protesters mean well, which we feel is the case with United American Committee. But you simply cannot stop citizens of a country from using public property just because you disagree with their political contributions (Hamas is a political party, like it or not.)

That would be a discriminatory practice done by a government, also known as institutional racism. In the last 50 years, the court system in the U.S. tends to look unfavorably on that.

And the Chronicle as a newspaper tends to look unfavorably on racism from the private sector as well. The United American Committee is the same group that held a protest against radical Islam in April of 2007.

Want to hear what some of the protesters were chanting, according to news reports?

"They kill their own women."

In that protest, they were quick to point out that Muslims were invited to join with them against radical Islamic beliefs. And one Islamic woman showed up - only to be taunted by the very people she had come to stand in solidarity with.

The UAC is a joke. It's a thinly-veiled group that disagrees with everything about Islam, never seeing the benefits of the religion.

There are more than a billion - that's billion with a B - Muslims in the world today, many of whom aren't even Middle Eastern. Since Sept. 11, we as Americans suddenly became interested in the goings-on of the Middle East.

The misinformation about the religion isn't helping the problem, it's making it worse. If you want to criticize the religion, make sure you're criticizing the extremists that make up a miniscule part of the population.

Anything else is borderline racism. Or, in the case of UAC, flat out racism.

We have a parliament of Fabians!A police force with Fabian leaders under the name of a linked org common purpose.

reply Email this page Fabians and the MonarchyOn October 24th, 2007 Bob (not verified) says:In a Fabian Society publication on the future of the Monarchy I have seen there was not one word about the Queen's role in guaranteeing Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689. The authors, who include Prof Stephen Haseler of the London Metropolitan University, a well known republican, wrote plenty about 'modernising' the Monarchy, generally downgrading it, having an elected Monarchy etc.

Haseler was/is a member of the Thomas Paine Dining Club of which included former 'Europe' Minister Denis MacShane. For some reason MacShane does not use his real surname which is Polish.

Thomas Paine was involved in both the French and American Revolutions. He sat with the 'Mountain' (Robespierre's group) in the French National Assembly. Paine narrowly avoided the guillotine.

Remember that Fabianism achieves its ends by gradualism -- by permeation and infiltration. Permeation is now known as 'consesnus'.

In Fabian Tract no 1 it is stated 'For the right moment you must wait . . .But when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did.'

The wily Roman General Fabius Cunctator wore down Hanibal by guerilla tactics and delaying tactics.

On the cover of the Fabian Society leaflet on Regionalisation by 'Regionaliter' (1942) the Fabian Tortoise appears with his motto 'When I strike, I strike hard'.The Tortoise is not seen much nowadays but the Fabian Wolf in Sheep's Clothing stained glass window commissioned by George Bernard Shaw has just been re-installed at the London School of Economics (2006). Blair was present at the ceremony.

‘Fabians appeared in so many desirable liberal (and cultural) connections that they could scarcely be believed to be subversive of private property or of liberty.’ Margaret, wife of Fabian economist G.D.H. Cole. 1943.

http://www.tpuc.org/node/65

John freeman of England Public Defender.Google Elizabeth Beckett News Blackout here.Thats' how free and Democratic this country is...NOT.